The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 33

twister111 said:

darth_ender said:

 In the very poignant words of my friend Warbler, "That is asinine."  I never said a uterus should fulfill it's purpose.  I'm saying it is designed for pregnancy.  As much as you might want, it will never pump blood for you.  It's designed for a specific function, and therefore the heart analogy was poor.  This example is only exacerbating the flaws of such thinking.

RicOlie_2 said:

The heart can easily be replaced with a more suitable body part. I figured my point would get across anyway, but yes, the analogy was poor.

thejediknighthusezni said:

I'll have a try for an analogy that can be followed.

Suppose that a teenage girl, out of sheer criminal irresponsiblity, decides to jack a car for a joy-ride. Unbeknownst to the little ditz, someone's little one year-old baby is in the back seat. To escape the cops, she decides to drive deep into a national park and runs out of gas.

It's freezing cold, no water or food, no telling how many hours or days until help comes by. She discovers the sleeping baby.

If she doesn't carry the baby next to her warm body several miles to where they can be found, the baby will freeze and die. But this is extremely inconvenient. There is even a slightly increased risk of great harm or death for the car-jackette.

Fortunately, the rad-femmes and their enlightened backers know exactly what to do.

Just chuck that little wad of meaningless proto-plasm into a ravine and forget about it.

Fine how's this for an analogy. A woman requests an abortion. She's denied it due to laws and the doctors are unable to determine immediate risk of death to her. She and the fetus end up dead in spite of the stats saying "low risk" of death. Oh wait That happened and it was even linked to in this very thread.

Well at least you can say that it was her choice to have sex in the first place right? I mean it's not like there's a risk of being shot if a woman doesn't have sex with a guy right? Oh wait looks like some guy took it upon himself to add that to the "risk" side of women not having sex. Also linked to before in this thread.

These risks are just something I didn't want ignored. You can create a billion different analogies. You can gripe about my choice of organ in those analogies. It won't magically lower or eliminate the risk of death and health risks involved here. It's still there and shouldn't be ignored.

Fortunately for me, I seem to be the one with the most relevant experience almost every time someone else brings up .  Septicemia, the cause of death of the first woman, means infection in the blood.  It is certainly life threatening.  It is also not caused by pregnancy.  It actually caused her to miscarry.  If she had her abortion even before she wanted it, with all other things being equal, the woman would still be dead.  She was not assessed or treated properly on other levels, and the life of the child had nothing to do with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

But let's go further.  Hospitals do not assess dangers correctly at times, and people sadly die.  In this one rare occasion, it was a pregnant woman who wanted and did not get an abortion.  Even if the baby had led to her death, sometimes that happens.  Sometimes people die because they have an appendix rupture and the hospital doesn't recognize the danger, even if the person wants their appendix removed.  So we should allow literally millions and millions of deaths every year because two years ago one woman died because she wasn't assessed appropriately?  Doesn't that seem extreme?  I admit, Ireland's laws should probably be a little more relaxed, as I feel the woman should have a greater opportunity for life than the child, but only slight.  Don't throw out the baby with the amniotic water, so to speak.  And it should be noted that Irish law has since been altered to better allow for such situations.

On the other hand, what on earth does a moron's massacre of six women who refused to have sex with him have to do with abortion???  Twister, you make some ridiculous stretches, and it is tiring to have to address them.  There is a risk that whatever you do, good or bad, some idiot is going to hate you for it and blow your brains out.  How does that story pertain to the discussion in any practical sense?

I know there are risks to pregnancy, probably better than anyone taking part in this discussion except perhaps TV's Frink, as I believe he is the only other participant who has children (and who had a legitimate reason to have an abortion to boot).  Even then, I have medical and behavioral health experience to assist me in the discussion.  My wife is presently pregnant and, at 22 weeks, is on bed rest.  I know there are risks.  But to simply allow abortions for whatever reason because of the rarity of risks to the mother and the extremely rare death....it's just wrong.  43.8 million dead plankton in 2008 alone.  Documented.  Who knows how many undocumented?  How many plankton that had their futures stolen from them?  How many of them were really underdeveloped Albert Einsteins or Michael Jordans or Twister111s or Bingowings or TV's Frinks?

And to turn the conversation in a different direction, I respect the Catholic belief that contraception is wrong, but I'd rather have 48.6 million prevented pregnancies than terminated ones.  

twister111 said:

Warbler said:

 I don't get this sperm argument you are trying to make. 

Alright so first off, this is a discussion that I didn't even want to get into. It's simply something that bothers me about this whole thing. There's all this talk of preserving potential life but the line is conveniently drawn at making it inconvenient for guys. It's as though making them preserve the potential lives in a freezer is way too much to ask for. Yet when it comes down to the health and life of women it's like "tough you had sex. Deal with it." Equating it with slave labour, reckless car crashes and the like.

the line isn't conveniently drawn.   The line is drawn at the point a new human life is created.   By the way, you are aware that some women draw the the line the same way, right?  You really think they deliberately draw it to convenience men and inconvenience themselves?

Warbler said:

2. why is it so difficult for you to understand that sperm is just a cell?  Yes it has the potential to create a human life if joined with an egg cell, but until then it is just a cell.   There is a big difference between something that has the potential to create a human life, and something that actually is a human life.  It is when the egg and sperm combine that a new separate and unque human life is created.  Again, you don't have cake batter until the ingredients are combined.   

It's not difficult for me to understand it's a cell. Though the big argument here is about what makes a person. A fetus is still not the same as a baby that has been born. Especially in it's early stages when if someone were to put it on the table right in front of your eyes you wouldn't see a damn thing.

I'll say it a third time: ingredients don't become cake batter until they are mixed together.  The egg cell and sperm cell are nothing of value until they combine and make a new life.

Warbler said:

Unfortunately, nothing can change the fact that nature gave the ability to carry the child to term to the mother and not the father. However unfair it is, it can not be helped. Please also remember that men who are not decent and honorable, can be forced to pay child support. Which does lead to an interesting question. If the father wanted the child aborted and the mother decided not to abort the child, should a father have to pay child support in that case? Can a father absolve himself of all legal responsiblity for the child because he wanted it aborted and the mother said no? Kinda seems unfair to me that with abortion, a woman has the ability to eliminate all responsiblity for the child, yet the father has no option of avoiding legal responsibility.

Is it really unfair when, as it's been reminded to me in these recent posts, even if a woman does get an abortion there are still possible health risks to her? Either way she doesn't get away without consequence.

unfortunately, nothing can be done about it.  Once the woman is pregnant, the health risks are there no matter what is done.   Unless and until healthcare improves to point where there is no risk of life in abortion or carrying the baby to term, the risk there.  

My point was that with abortion being legal, the mother has the ability to rid herself of all responsibly of the child, the father has no such choice.  I think that it is therefor arguable that if a woman wants to carry a baby to term and the father wants it aborted, that she take all responsibly for it.

That said yeah a guy can still avoid paying the child support. It'd just take cutting off any and all ties to their previous lives but it could be done.

that is easier said than done.   Also whatever guy is doing this, would have to live with the risk of being found out someday.  I think there are legal reprocusions for trying to avoid child support this way.   There are also legal reprocusions for going around under a false identity.  

 Course he could just do it the quick and absolute moronic way too and just sell all his stuff and fly to some foreign country with no plan whatsoever. There are options.

 I suppose this is possible,but I think it unlikely. 

Unfortunately this is another side effect of nature making it so that women become pregnant and carry the child to term.  It can not be helped.   If you think I don't sympathize, you are wrong.  But really, nothing can be done about it.   

These possibilities are all the more reason for women to be very care who they have sex with, especially if the sex is the unprotected kind.   

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Yes I defend the rights of mice because they have a clear desire to not die or feel pain and express happiness when their goals are achieved. You are happy to eat more sophisticated creatures which makes you inconsistent or at least speciesist. If someone were to offer human meat for sale would you eat it if it came from someone with the mental capacity of a cow?

 

Warbler warbed :

 That is completely asinine.

I don't take that as an insult. Donkey's, mules and other equines are far more sophisticated than dogs and you wouldn't eat a dog...would you?

 would you eat a fetus?  You seem to put less value on the life of a fetus than that of a mouse. 

I'm a vegetarian, I see no difference in eating a fetus and eating a prawn. I would eat pre-dead animal or human flesh to stay alive but I would never kill or endorse killing. I'd rather die.

I put more importance in a born mouse than an unwanted fetus.

A fetus is only important to the adults surrounding it not to itself, an adult mouse is important to itself and it's significant other or children or parents.

Ender if your are protecting the future potential of the zygote why not protect the future potential of the plankton which may evolve into a fully functioning non-human sentience?

As for most people...I don't post for them. I post for me. As I've said before anything not in a quote box is me not someone else's opinion or a universal truth should such a thing exist.

I'll respond to the new things you've said, as I've already addressed the rest multiple times.

Bingowings said:

Ender if your are protecting the future potential of the zygote why not protect the future potential of the plankton which may evolve into a fully functioning non-human sentience?

Or bacteria for that matter?  Why not protect them, right?  We're not talking about hypothetically evolving to human sentience over millions of years after millions of generations, and only doing so through survival of the fittest, meaning that the most vulnerable and ill-equipped to survive will get eaten.  We are talking about the same organism that was conceived, then born, then developed to find self-importance.  Just like killing another full-fledged, self-aware adult is killing his or her potential, as the same organism.  We don't try people for preventing someone from producing offspring.  We try people for killing an individual who had potential to carry on.

As for most people...I don't post for them. I post for me. As I've said before anything not in a quote box is me not someone else's opinion or a universal truth should such a thing exist.

This is all good news.  I'm not sure what you're referring to.  I don't think I attributed someone else's quote to you, but I'm glad you say what you feel.  I am enjoying this debate with you, and I'm glad we haven't gotten on each other's nerves too much.

I avoid antibacterial detergents specifically to not unnecessarily kill bacteria.

There are lethally harmful bacteria, there are annoying bacteria and there are useful bacteria as well as bacteria essential for living on this planet in this time.

Killing them willy-nilly is just as bad as having a leisurely attitude to traumatic surgery.

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

As for most people...I don't post for them. I post for me. As I've said before anything not in a quote box is me not someone else's opinion or a universal truth should such a thing exist.

This is all good news.  I'm not sure what you're referring to.  I don't think I attributed someone else's quote to you, but I'm glad you say what you feel.  I am enjoying this debate with you, and I'm glad we haven't gotten on each other's nerves too much.

 I am willing to bet he is talking about about me quoting him within someone else's post, like I am doing here.   I do that because the only time I read what he writes is when someone else quotes him.  I want to make clear that I am responding to a quote of his in someone else's post and not to his post itself, which I did not read.   

Nope I was referring to Ender's assertion that most people would consider non-human animal life beneath human animal life.

If I'm on ignore it's best to either un-ignore me enough to get the context or to not respond to my words quoted out of context.

That way you won't lose bets.

Bingowings said:

I avoid antibacterial detergents specifically to not unnecessarily kill bacteria.

There are lethally harmful bacteria, there are annoying bacteria and there are useful bacteria as well as bacteria essential for living on this planet in this time.

Killing them willy-nilly is just as bad as having a leisurely attitude to traumatic surgery.

 Wow.  Most bacteria that are beneficial are already inside of you.  You are not eating them off your hands.  Your efforts to avoid killing them is not assuring you greater longevity because you think you are preserving essential bacteria.  Using non-antibacterial soap will still kill many, though many others will thrive elsewhere.  As you live from moment to moment, your body is killing bacteria that has managed to penetrate your outer defenses.  Every time you take antibiotics because of a serious infection, you are massacring trillions of those little prokaryotes, including those that are good for you.

Bacteria will not only outlast you, they will outlast humanity.  They are the most adaptable species on the planet.  Have no fear.

But what astounds me about this post is the irony: more protectiveness towards bacteria than towards a zygote?  A part of me hopes this is one of your sarcastic posts, trying to tie the saving of both together, but you seem pretty sincere.

Bingo has completely lost me.

I don't use soap just water and elbow grease.

To my knowledge I have probably killed some bacteria but I have never killed a zygote so your claim of me being more protective of one over the other is incorrect.

I simply base my actions where possible on observation and empathy.

If something looks like plankton, acts like plankton I don't call it a person.

If it looks like plankton but acts as in manner suggesting it has hopes and dreams and can suffer I treat it as a very small differently looking person.

A zygote looks like plankton, it acts like plankton I can't call it a person or ascribe human rights to it but the woman it's inside is clearly a person so I have to ascribe rights to her and any mice she may have living in her house.

TV's Frink said:

Bingo has completely lost me.

 this^  A thousand million times over.

Only a thousand?

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Bingo has completely lost me.

 this^  A thousand times over.

Thus speaks the man who failed to get a reference to a Star Wars film on a Star Wars site. Oh and I am on ignore. You can't contextualise my comments even if you had the capacity to do so.

It's pretty simple really, I don't see human beings as particularly important in relation to other animal forms so when I see something as simple as a Zygote I respond to it in the same way I do other simple things like Plankton.

When I see something as simple as an early term fetus I respond to it in relation to other creatures as complex. I see chickens as being as intelligent and worthy of life as a human toddler. I don't eat either of them.

I understand that to some people this seems odd but to me defending the rights of a blob of cells while slaughtering and eating pigs and cows is beyond weird.

Killing both is consistent, killing neither is consistent but to kill one and not the other is a dangerous paradox.

Supposedly toddlers taste like chicken.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Only a thousand?

 ok, a million times over.

TV's Frink said:

Supposedly toddlers taste like chicken.

They are like chickens but they taste mostly of pork or veal (another baby animal)...supposedly...your honour.

Well, I think we are at an impasse, and I have little desire to continue this train of discussion.  If it looks like plankton, it can be treated like plankton, and thus killed when the mother is inconvenienced.  If it looks like bacteria, we'll just use a little elbow grease and spare as many as possible.  We'll save all pigs and bacteria, but eat onions and allow abortions.  The crushing logic has me defeated, but I'm so stubborn that I'll stick my archaic Judeo-Christian/Mormonite views.

PS I recommend taking prednisone.  It will lower your immune system and thus save countless bacteria on a daily basis.  Plus it will reduce the swelling of your ego, now that you've clearly won this debate. ;)

All this from the guy who believes the contents of mysteriously appearing/disappearing books, written in a language that no one has ever seen before. which can only be translated by Scrying down a top hat and contains stories of civilisations of which there is no evidence, visited by a crucified prophet from the Middle East of which there is also no concrete evidence of existence. 

The guy who publishes multiple threads requesting opinions on controversial subjects and then waxes sarcastically when they don't match his own.

Yes I try to avoid killing things when they demonstrate actions comparable to my own. I have to eat so I draw the line at vegetation which I can replenish. I don't abort fetuses but I'm no more and in some contexts less connected to them than I am the chickens I don't eat.

It might not be a money spinning belief system with fancy temples or magic pants  but for you of all people to puff yourself up over your frankly bizarre belief system over mine is frankly hilarious. You really should be on broadcast television. I don't watch broadcast television.

You go off protect those fragile cell clusters and invisible people and I will continue to do my bit for the tangible.

Good job.  I knew it would turn to this.  Can't handle an obvious joke with the little winky faces to make it obvious.  Can't handle the inconsistencies in your argument pointed out.  So go ahead and begin mocking another's religion that you repeatedly demonstrate a failure to understand.  Go ahead and insult others, when even another non-religious person finds your arguments and beliefs untenable.  Yes, real mature people resort to name calling when they can't make their point effectively.  Congratulations.  You won a handful of bacteria for your victory.

darth_ender said:

Well, I think we are at an impasse, and I have little desire to continue this train of discussion.  If it looks like plankton, it can be treated like plankton, and thus killed when the mother is inconvenienced.  If it looks like bacteria, we'll just use a little elbow grease and spare as many as possible.  We'll save all pigs and bacteria, but eat onions and allow abortions.  The crushing logic has me defeated, but I'm so stubborn that I'll stick my archaic Judeo-Christian/Mormonite views.

PS I recommend taking prednisone.  It will lower your immune system and thus save countless bacteria on a daily basis.  Plus it will reduce the swelling of your ego, now that you've clearly won this debate. ;)

 Not to meantion the fact that Bingo will never stop complaining about me killing mice that were invading my house but is 100% fine with women killing human fetuses just for convience(yes I know this is not always the reason for having an abortion, but lets face it sometimes it is).

darth_ender said:

Good job.  I knew it would turn to this.  Can't handle an obvious joke with the little winky faces to make it obvious.  Can't handle the inconsistencies in your argument pointed out.  So go ahead and begin mocking another's religion that you repeatedly demonstrate a failure to understand.  Go ahead and insult others, when even another non-religious person finds your arguments and beliefs untenable.  Yes, real mature people resort to name calling when they can't make their point effectively.  Congratulations.  You won a handful of bacteria for your victory.

 ah so apparantely Bingo has taken to insulting and mocking Christianity again(I haven't read his post, I just trust from what Ender said here, that it is the case).  Why am I not surprised. 

and on and on and on and on the broken record goes . . .

To be fair, that toddler could also be Hitler...or even Michael Bay, God forbid.